118
118
Jul 21, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 118
favorite 0
quote 0
and then there is doma. we carry our marriage documents, adoption documents and medical care proxy documents when we travel. i am ineligible for inclusion in military family benefits. we are not eligible to file joint income tax. we are ineligible for spousal social security benefits to the event of the death of one of us. it is time to end this discriminatory policy. carol and ann right we have been together since 1987 and have had 20 foster children. for 30 years i have worked at the same company and pay taxes and in been a model citizens for 23 years and taking care of children in need. one high school we were known as the ladies. educators heaved a sigh of relief when they knew a tough child had us as their foster parents. with kindness and patience and compassion our efforts have made great changes and 20 young lives. we are doing our best to make this a better world. please pass the respect for marriage act to reverse doma. we want to feel the stellar foster children we are married 100%. bill and ernie
and then there is doma. we carry our marriage documents, adoption documents and medical care proxy documents when we travel. i am ineligible for inclusion in military family benefits. we are not eligible to file joint income tax. we are ineligible for spousal social security benefits to the event of the death of one of us. it is time to end this discriminatory policy. carol and ann right we have been together since 1987 and have had 20 foster children. for 30 years i have worked at the same...
74
74
Aug 22, 2011
08/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 74
favorite 0
quote 0
not changed with doma. it is the same and that is why i question the advice that mr. wallin spoke about when he talked about legal advice given to him about how to survive. it seems as though the legal advice he was talking about assumed that doma would be repealed but it seems to me that the legal advice of a competent adviser ought to understand the situation that exists. nothing has changed since doma past for these couples. >> section 2 of doma has nothing to do with any things -- anyone's benefit. to be the effect in what on what justification do proponents of repealing doma offer or repealing section 2? >> well, section 2 is that section of doma which excuses states from being required to recognize same-sex marriage as performed in other states. these are the states that have overwhelmingly determined what marriage is for the citizens of that state. overwhelmingly they have voted for that. if doma were to be repealed, presumably same-sex marriage performed elsewhere would have to be recognized in thos
not changed with doma. it is the same and that is why i question the advice that mr. wallin spoke about when he talked about legal advice given to him about how to survive. it seems as though the legal advice he was talking about assumed that doma would be repealed but it seems to me that the legal advice of a competent adviser ought to understand the situation that exists. nothing has changed since doma past for these couples. >> section 2 of doma has nothing to do with any things --...
111
111
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 111
favorite 0
quote 0
doma is an anomaly. and i don't think there was one exw disagreement with that on the court today, at least what one could hear from the questions. >> woodruff: the other strand on this -- and you touched on this, mary bonauto-- whether there is oit and out discrimination. we heard it from justice sotomayor. we heard it from justice kagan. we heard her ask at one point-- she talked about moral disapproval of home's sexuality. how does that play out in the court today and how important is that tho deciding this case? >> more important is that the obama administration rejected. they readily said in court doma was not driven by animous. in fact, they said doma-- what is called rational basis reviewsh the federal standard under equal protection when we evaluate laws-- the obama solicitor general, verrilli, said if rational base review is the tet doma would survive. this lou-- they said congress made a mistake in passing it but was not trying to discriminate. >> woodruff: so what role do you see discriminatio
doma is an anomaly. and i don't think there was one exw disagreement with that on the court today, at least what one could hear from the questions. >> woodruff: the other strand on this -- and you touched on this, mary bonauto-- whether there is oit and out discrimination. we heard it from justice sotomayor. we heard it from justice kagan. we heard her ask at one point-- she talked about moral disapproval of home's sexuality. how does that play out in the court today and how important is...
79
79
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 79
favorite 0
quote 0
and doma was about fear. it was about president clinton who wanted to get re-elected and republicans were about to do something and he felt he had to do what was necessary to sign this legislation. there are a lot of people, including myself, opposed to doma from the very beginning and i think that there was a lack of political courage on all parties at that point in the early 1990s. but times have changed. times have changed since 2004 when john kerry didn't even support marriage equality. we as presidential nominee for democratic party. we are now in 2013. we have a president of the united states who supports marriage equality. majority of americans support marriage equality. more members of congress are coming out to say this. in supreme court there is an inclination times have changed and they are coming to grips with that reality. >> let me read what our first teams say about speaker bainer. speaker boehner and house republicans spent millions to dough fend the act in court after the obama administration
and doma was about fear. it was about president clinton who wanted to get re-elected and republicans were about to do something and he felt he had to do what was necessary to sign this legislation. there are a lot of people, including myself, opposed to doma from the very beginning and i think that there was a lack of political courage on all parties at that point in the early 1990s. but times have changed. times have changed since 2004 when john kerry didn't even support marriage equality. we...
84
84
Jun 27, 2013
06/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 84
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> doma's down, doma's unconstitutional! >> reporter: the justices had struck down a key section of the "defense of marriage act" or doma. that section of the 1996 law, signed by president clinton, defines marriage as "one man and one woman", and it bars same-sex couples from collecting federal marriage-related benefits. but the majority, led by justice anthony kennedy, found those provisions are unconstitutional. kennedy wrote: the court left intact a separate provision that lets a state refuse to recognize a same-sex union from another state. still, for gay rights supporters, the overall decision was welcome news. >> i'm very proud today of our supreme court's decision. it's very, very personal and i'm deeply appreciative. >> reporter: a smaller group of gay marriage opponents deplored the decision. >> well i'm disappointed in the ruling. i believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and i'm afraid that this ruling will affect the definition of marriage so that if it's not between one man and one woman. it can b
. >> doma's down, doma's unconstitutional! >> reporter: the justices had struck down a key section of the "defense of marriage act" or doma. that section of the 1996 law, signed by president clinton, defines marriage as "one man and one woman", and it bars same-sex couples from collecting federal marriage-related benefits. but the majority, led by justice anthony kennedy, found those provisions are unconstitutional. kennedy wrote: the court left intact a separate...
65
65
Aug 29, 2011
08/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 65
favorite 0
quote 0
of doma. many other vermont families reached out to share their experience, where small business owners pay more in federal taxes because they are not allowed to file like other married couples do. young couples are attacks when their employer provides health insurance to their spouse. there are working parents of teenaged children's, retirees with reason of life care. these are powerful stories. and there are stories, all of them will be part of the hearing record. the respect of marriage act would allow all couples were married under state law to be eligible for the same federal protections afforded every other lawfully married couple. nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organizations, state and locality, to perform a marriage between two persons of the same-sex. those prerogatives would remain. what would change and must change is the federal government treatment of state sanctioned marriages. time has come for the federal government to recognize these married couples
of doma. many other vermont families reached out to share their experience, where small business owners pay more in federal taxes because they are not allowed to file like other married couples do. young couples are attacks when their employer provides health insurance to their spouse. there are working parents of teenaged children's, retirees with reason of life care. these are powerful stories. and there are stories, all of them will be part of the hearing record. the respect of marriage act...
1,597
1.6K
Mar 7, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
quote
eye 1,597
favorite 0
quote 2
they passed doma in the 1990's. so around 4, 5, that we are running around with these bills and one of the court-stripping bills stripped the court of judicial review was specifically on doma. so aware were they that it could not withstand judicial review that they wanted to pass a bill and the purpose of the bill was to strip the court of the power to review constitutionality of doma. they probably would -- they put it on doma and maybe they weren't thinking at the time, probably wouldn't have gotten a presidential signature for doma. but because they themselves wanted to shield doma from the review of the court, i think they know it's very weak and that it will fall. >> how about the justices? >> well, there's always that. i keep praying. i keep praying on that. i know it's unconstitutional. the question is -- i think it's a pretty good case. >> on doma or both? >> i think doma falls is not strictly speaking make a prop 8. there are still some issues. but i think we have to get doma to fall. prop 8 to me is ridicu
they passed doma in the 1990's. so around 4, 5, that we are running around with these bills and one of the court-stripping bills stripped the court of judicial review was specifically on doma. so aware were they that it could not withstand judicial review that they wanted to pass a bill and the purpose of the bill was to strip the court of the power to review constitutionality of doma. they probably would -- they put it on doma and maybe they weren't thinking at the time, probably wouldn't have...
29
29
tv
eye 29
favorite 0
quote 0
anality but since doma is still the law of the land and the justice department still technically in force is that someone or something asked argue for it in this case that means attorneys for the bipartisan legal action group congressional body that has the authority to represent the house of representatives in a court of law maybe yes that's right john boehner the house republicans are using taxpayer dollars to fight for a law that the justice department and most of the country for that matter doesn't agree with because of the some commentators who question whether or not blog and its attorneys actually have standing to defend doma in front of the supreme court if they don't the justices could just dismiss the case standing by the way was a huge theme in yesterday's hollingsworth the perry hearings as well as california officials have decided similarly not to defend that state's gay marriage ban in front of the courts the justices were concerned that the lawyers arguing for the ban in california didn't actually represent any of the interested parties in it and the justices touched on sta
anality but since doma is still the law of the land and the justice department still technically in force is that someone or something asked argue for it in this case that means attorneys for the bipartisan legal action group congressional body that has the authority to represent the house of representatives in a court of law maybe yes that's right john boehner the house republicans are using taxpayer dollars to fight for a law that the justice department and most of the country for that matter...
213
213
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 213
favorite 0
quote 0
originally defending doma, then choosing not to defend doma, then essentially saying doma needed to be struck down. the president of course in his evolution as he called it on gay marriage, will now support this. this ruling. i just want to read one other piece of this from justice kennedy. and this i think is the heart of it. shannon nailed eight as well. the federal statute he says is invalid for no legitimate purpose, overcome the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood andity. by seeking to displace this protection and those persons as living in marriages less pre-respect than others. that's justice kennedy. justice scalia and justice thomas and the chief justice dissented saying there was no jurisdiction for the supreme court to have this ruling. bill: kern difficult writes this places same-sex couples in a position of being in a second-tier marriage which refers back to what shannon was talking about, about the skim mill' argument. shannon bream stand by. much more coverage on this. we are still awaiting
originally defending doma, then choosing not to defend doma, then essentially saying doma needed to be struck down. the president of course in his evolution as he called it on gay marriage, will now support this. this ruling. i just want to read one other piece of this from justice kennedy. and this i think is the heart of it. shannon nailed eight as well. the federal statute he says is invalid for no legitimate purpose, overcome the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the...
77
77
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 77
favorite 0
quote 0
today doma. as perhaps expecting that the court would issue some kind of sweeping ruling on gay rights. and it doesn't seem that that's going to be the case. certainly not from the prop 8 argument yesterday where the court seemed to be searching for the narrowest possible way to permit marriage to resume only in california without setting a national precedent. and today if a majority of -- or if justice kennedy is the controlling vote here and he sees this more as federalism than discrimination, that could be a very narrow opinion as well. >> pete, let's look at this thing. here's justice kennedy. it focuses on his concerns about the defense of marriage act. i think he's going to strike it down. doma. and how it interferes with state rights, as you say. let's listen. >> when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essenc
today doma. as perhaps expecting that the court would issue some kind of sweeping ruling on gay rights. and it doesn't seem that that's going to be the case. certainly not from the prop 8 argument yesterday where the court seemed to be searching for the narrowest possible way to permit marriage to resume only in california without setting a national precedent. and today if a majority of -- or if justice kennedy is the controlling vote here and he sees this more as federalism than...
87
87
Jun 27, 2013
06/13
by
COM
tv
eye 87
favorite 0
quote 0
doma, the defense of marriage act, ruled unconstitutional. >> doma a law that's been on the books for 17 years has been struck down in a 5-4 ruling which means couples married in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal will have the rights and protections to are currently provided to opposite-sex married couples under the federal law. >> the defense of marriage act is finally dead and gone. >> stephen: the defense of marriage act is dead. [ cheers and applause ] traditional... like my audience, i clap when i'm afraid. traditional marriage is now as defenseless as a freshman frat pledge about to go through the spanking machine. so straight married people, listen up. if a gay charges your marriage you're going to want to puff yourself up, make yourself seem bigger, try to frighten it off by talking in a firm, loud voice about pleated denim or jimmy buffet. it's going to be okay. it will scare 'em off. folks, i for one cannot believe the court threw out doma. it was passed in 1996 to guarantee that traditional marriage was between one man and one woman for the sacred purpose o
doma, the defense of marriage act, ruled unconstitutional. >> doma a law that's been on the books for 17 years has been struck down in a 5-4 ruling which means couples married in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal will have the rights and protections to are currently provided to opposite-sex married couples under the federal law. >> the defense of marriage act is finally dead and gone. >> stephen: the defense of marriage act is dead. [ cheers and applause ]...
64
64
Mar 23, 2013
03/13
by
KQEH
tv
eye 64
favorite 0
quote 0
and not allow anybody to get married. >> if they strike doma down on certain grounds, doma violates basic rights of equality, that leaves a lot that ban same-sex marriage dangling. >> scott: there is a question of standing and both cases asked both sides to argue why they have the right to be there. how big a deal is that? is that a sleeper issue? >> it is a big issue. one of the cues we have of that is the supreme court asked for briefing on that question and is allowing time for separate oral argument on that question in both cases. i think the issue of standing in relation to prop 8 is an interesting one. as vik said, the attorney general and governor from the get-go have not defended prop 8. the question is whether these proponents of prop 8 represented by mr. pugno we heard earlier have the right to do that. essentially, the ballots are private citizens. they are not people elected to make litigation decisions. you have a situation where you have private parties who might be able to make litigation decisions and have no accountability for that. nor any delegation of authority t
and not allow anybody to get married. >> if they strike doma down on certain grounds, doma violates basic rights of equality, that leaves a lot that ban same-sex marriage dangling. >> scott: there is a question of standing and both cases asked both sides to argue why they have the right to be there. how big a deal is that? is that a sleeper issue? >> it is a big issue. one of the cues we have of that is the supreme court asked for briefing on that question and is allowing time...
169
169
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 169
favorite 0
quote 0
some say doma may be in trouble. >>> also, congressman john lewis who passionately fought against doma in 1996 -- >> i will not turn my back on another american. i will not my fellow human being. >> he will join us live for the "news nation" conversation on the supreme court. >>> plus, the fight over the reward money tied to the chris dorner case. a million dollars at stake. but mrs. now a battle over who led police to the man who killed four l.a. officers. it is all coming up next on "news nation." we've all had those moments. when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. "news nation" is br
some say doma may be in trouble. >>> also, congressman john lewis who passionately fought against doma in 1996 -- >> i will not turn my back on another american. i will not my fellow human being. >> he will join us live for the "news nation" conversation on the supreme court. >>> plus, the fight over the reward money tied to the chris dorner case. a million dollars at stake. but mrs. now a battle over who led police to the man who killed four l.a....
28
28
tv
eye 28
favorite 0
quote 0
this could be the winning argument so is doma done with issues of standing sway the court and warm. what the what does today's hearing mean for the future of the rights movement in america let's ask shane farnsworth a supreme court reporter for the talk radio news service and joe toy federal director for freedom to marry and welcome to both of you. if i can start with you with this whole blag thing if i can somewhat disagree with my own set up and the you know it's not like somebody has to defend this law it's in fact the administration either should be defending the law and enforcing it or should be saying the law is unconstitutional and refusing to enforce it and instead they're refusing to defend it but they're continuing to enforce it which makes no sense and john roberts called out the president did call him how does that ever sit for asli he said he lacked the courage that if you really fox if it was unconstitutional the shouldn't force it in fact the president swears an oath to defend the constitution so you could actually argue that it's violating that by enforcing a law tha
this could be the winning argument so is doma done with issues of standing sway the court and warm. what the what does today's hearing mean for the future of the rights movement in america let's ask shane farnsworth a supreme court reporter for the talk radio news service and joe toy federal director for freedom to marry and welcome to both of you. if i can start with you with this whole blag thing if i can somewhat disagree with my own set up and the you know it's not like somebody has to...
144
144
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 144
favorite 0
quote 0
if you look at the rationale in the doma cases -- the doma case and you apply that to proposition 8 and other rulings, it's a huge victory. we're very happy. we're not disappointed at all. >> ted, when we hear about the lieutenant governor of california on talking about there will be some cleanup necessary once california gets the legalese of this, is it your estimation that marriage licenses could be resumed by august? >> absolutely. we think that that will happen quickly. the governor and attorney general will move swiftly to bring marriage back to california so we say let the marriages begin as soon as possible. >> ted who is one of the attorneys representing one of the plaintiffs for prop 8. again, ted, congratulations to you and thanks for joining me today. i appreciate your time. >> thank you so much. >> absolutely. >>> for more impact on these decisions i want to bring in melissa harris-perry, host of the melissa harris-perry show right here on msnbc. your reaction to the supreme court decision on doma and prop 8. it's been a rocky week for rulings from the supreme court especial
if you look at the rationale in the doma cases -- the doma case and you apply that to proposition 8 and other rulings, it's a huge victory. we're very happy. we're not disappointed at all. >> ted, when we hear about the lieutenant governor of california on talking about there will be some cleanup necessary once california gets the legalese of this, is it your estimation that marriage licenses could be resumed by august? >> absolutely. we think that that will happen quickly. the...
107
107
Jun 27, 2013
06/13
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 107
favorite 0
quote 0
i wish he had voted the other way on doma. i think he's sticking with his conservative values. >> john: he did invite you and your partner to attend the hearings at the supreme court? >> i want to correct that. >> john: please. >> he--i asked for the tickets. he agreed. he let me have the tickets. so it wasn't as if he were giving out tickets left and right. i asked for them, and he gave them to me. so i feel--i will always feel quite honored that he didn't veto me, and he did give us the tickets. >> john: i think that's a great piece of history in this story. you told the l.a. plans that you plan to marry your partner later this year at lake tahoe. i have to ask the million dollar question, do you plan to invite your cousin chief justice roberts. >> we just learned of this ruling today. i know i will rule family, but i can't say that the guest list was printed out. >> john: that was very diplomatic, you should work in government. thank you for your time. >> thank you, thank you so much. >> john: to break down the court ruling
i wish he had voted the other way on doma. i think he's sticking with his conservative values. >> john: he did invite you and your partner to attend the hearings at the supreme court? >> i want to correct that. >> john: please. >> he--i asked for the tickets. he agreed. he let me have the tickets. so it wasn't as if he were giving out tickets left and right. i asked for them, and he gave them to me. so i feel--i will always feel quite honored that he didn't veto me, and...
65
65
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 65
favorite 0
quote 0
, section three of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determination of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the rights of gay people. this was rooted in moral -- >> what do you think is -- the argument that i heard was to put the other side, at least one part of it, as i understand it, look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there has been this uniform one man-one woman rule for several hundred years, whatever, and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the revolution or push is along a little, or we stay out of it. and i think mr. clement was saying, we need to stay out of it. the way to stay out is to go with the traditional thing. that's an argument. so your answer is wha
, section three of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determination of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the rights of gay people. this was rooted in moral -- >> what do you think is...
83
83
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 83
favorite 0
quote 0
but not a doma problem. >> i think it is a doma question. the question is whether or not the federal government under our federalist scheme has the authority to regulate marriage. >> and it doesn't have the authority to regulate marriages as such but that's not what doma does. doma defines a term as it appears in federal statutes and with they provide burdens, provide disclosure obligations. it appears in lots of places. >> congress could have achieved exactly what it achieved under section 3 by excising the term married from the united states code and replacing it with something more neutral, could have said certified domestic units and then defined this in exactly the way that section 3, exactly the way doma defines marriage. would that make a difference in that instance, the federal government wouldn't be purporting to say who is married and who is not married, it would be say who is entitled to various federal benefits and burdens based on a federal definition? >> that would make no difference, justice ali to. -- alito. but when the fede
but not a doma problem. >> i think it is a doma question. the question is whether or not the federal government under our federalist scheme has the authority to regulate marriage. >> and it doesn't have the authority to regulate marriages as such but that's not what doma does. doma defines a term as it appears in federal statutes and with they provide burdens, provide disclosure obligations. it appears in lots of places. >> congress could have achieved exactly what it achieved...
440
440
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
KGO
tv
eye 440
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kennedy decided not to go narrow on doma. he said doma violates the individual rights of same-sex couples who are lawfully married in states. back to the federalism point, he said states have always had the power to define marriage. so he does not like it here and strikes down the federal government's interference with that. but he's also doing that on a powerful individual rights basis. so we have two principles here, federalism combined with individual rights gives us doma. you add that together and prop 8 does not look like it's likely to stand. >> okay, julie. we'll check in with you in a couple minutes on that one. right now we want to check in with cornell bernard. >> live at city hall where there's a lot of action and celebration. cornell? >> a whole bunch of cheering going on here, news that doma, the defense of marriage act, has been struck down. i have never seen so many people packed into the city hall rotunda as i am seeing right now. thunderous applause happening here just a few moments ago. everyone is watching
justice kennedy decided not to go narrow on doma. he said doma violates the individual rights of same-sex couples who are lawfully married in states. back to the federalism point, he said states have always had the power to define marriage. so he does not like it here and strikes down the federal government's interference with that. but he's also doing that on a powerful individual rights basis. so we have two principles here, federalism combined with individual rights gives us doma. you add...
247
247
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
KRON
tv
eye 247
favorite 0
quote 0
-doma. >>james: >> the only proper parties who have brought this case with the state of california as the defense door of the law. this type of case may not come up again. there are 39 other states that have banned at same sex and marriage. there are cases pending and all of those jurisdictions. some of which will wind up at the supreme court. given where roberts came down on dolma, do we want to go that way or do we want to work it state by state. the opinion polls are changing and get these laws are repealed or do we take the supreme court strategy when we're not sure right now what are not we have five about. >>mark: is a there any a line of attack to protect american people cannot take as far as overturning judge walker's ruling. >> >>darya: and practical terms we have to queue to decisions today that impact to the positive of the gay community around the country and the epicenter in bay area. people are gathered at waiting who want to get married as soon as possible. on the right hand s
-doma. >>james: >> the only proper parties who have brought this case with the state of california as the defense door of the law. this type of case may not come up again. there are 39 other states that have banned at same sex and marriage. there are cases pending and all of those jurisdictions. some of which will wind up at the supreme court. given where roberts came down on dolma, do we want to go that way or do we want to work it state by state. the opinion polls are changing and...
487
487
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
KNTV
tv
eye 487
favorite 0
quote 0
as you mentioned, doma struck down. waiting phone proposition 8, california's ban on same-sex marriage. this -- rulings come on an monumental week for san francisco. this is also the week of the city's 43rd annual gay pride parade. events begin thursday run through sun. 1.4 million expected in the city. the administrator says that if prop 8 is struck down, this would be huge for the city. probably a 30-day waiting period before marriages could begin in california. in preparation, the city has been training volunteers, 50 or so, to act as deputy clerks in order to handle the rush of marriage licenses. however, if proposition 8 is up held and the ban in place, legal experts believe the same-sex marriage supporters will try to bring this issue before voters again. recall in 2008 it was voters that actually passed proposition 8 in the first place but same-sex marriage supporters believed that in the five-years since then, attitudes towards same-sex marriage shifted. here in san francisco city hall, hundreds of people awaiti
as you mentioned, doma struck down. waiting phone proposition 8, california's ban on same-sex marriage. this -- rulings come on an monumental week for san francisco. this is also the week of the city's 43rd annual gay pride parade. events begin thursday run through sun. 1.4 million expected in the city. the administrator says that if prop 8 is struck down, this would be huge for the city. probably a 30-day waiting period before marriages could begin in california. in preparation, the city has...
95
95
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 95
favorite 0
quote 0
i was council during the doma proceedings. i remember how decidedly and openly and unapologetically bigoted that entire process was. we had two days of markup. i remember a colleague of mine who was counsel, happened to be gay, i remember seeing tears in his eyes because of the open bigotry that went on in that committee room, and it is just really disappointing you don't see the court wanting to tackle the central issue here. >> let's listen to the chairman of the republican party thinking out loud about what has happened to the public attitude that has changed so much on this issue. >> why is this an issue in which we are seeing support for same-sex marriage rise so rapidly in a really short period of time? >> i'm not sure, but i think it's obviously -- i think it is part of culture. i think it's an interesting topic to people, it's not all debts and math and deficits and long term, you know, credit scores and things like that. >> there you have it, jonathan capehart, there's no math. >> it is oh, so easy, it is an interesti
i was council during the doma proceedings. i remember how decidedly and openly and unapologetically bigoted that entire process was. we had two days of markup. i remember a colleague of mine who was counsel, happened to be gay, i remember seeing tears in his eyes because of the open bigotry that went on in that committee room, and it is just really disappointing you don't see the court wanting to tackle the central issue here. >> let's listen to the chairman of the republican party...
24
24
May 26, 2014
05/14
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 24
favorite 0
quote 0
but do challenge those doma baez as i was watching those mouflon simultaneously but it did not turn out that way >> host: so then they will talk about that but you talk about you had unfettered access to chad who's started the organization and now the head of the human rights campaign and that most of ben incredibly interesting to be the fly of the wall story for your accounting and you were are conference calls you could walk into so boyars meetings. -- though boyars meetings did you have drinks with them? >> for instance the trial i ryan did in san francisco i took all my vacation time just to be in these rooms. i would echo eight or nine days before. but i was reading room to room where chad griffin buyer is mounting a huge campaign but what is interesting to me now is they are reading this book they find out things because i was the only one crossing room to room. >> host: i take it any litigator knows it is intimidating. i had the impression you were part of that intensity that you lived with it and a breathlessness to the experience and if you felt part of the teams that you had t
but do challenge those doma baez as i was watching those mouflon simultaneously but it did not turn out that way >> host: so then they will talk about that but you talk about you had unfettered access to chad who's started the organization and now the head of the human rights campaign and that most of ben incredibly interesting to be the fly of the wall story for your accounting and you were are conference calls you could walk into so boyars meetings. -- though boyars meetings did you...
109
109
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 109
favorite 0
quote 0
, section 3 of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision, for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determinations of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this discriminatory purpose was rooted in moral disapproval as justice kagan pointed out. >> what -- what do you think of his -- the argument that i heard was, to put the other side, at least one part of it as i understand it said: look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there has been this uniform one man one woman rule for several hundred years or whatever, and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the resolution -- the revolution or push it along a little, or we stay out of it. and i think mr. clement was saying, well, we've decided t
, section 3 of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision, for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determinations of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this discriminatory purpose was rooted in moral...
104
104
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 104
favorite 0
quote 0
or prosecute any doma specific cases. and then over the summer of last year, coming out in a full throated endorsement for marriage equality before his re-election. it would be quite a contradiction if the president had come out for marriage equality but was having his department of justice go after and criminalize doma-style cases and knowing full well it was headed to the supreme court anyway. >> you know, jonathan, it's interesting. again, this idea that the justices as you pointed out seem to be trying to find these various off ramps, you know, sort of not have to decide or not make a sweeping decision, the language we heard yesterday. yet this is an issue that has overwhelming public support. it is an issue that has garnered a lot of public attention. it just strikes me as, i don't know, i'll just say it, a little bit of a lack of courage. though i thought some of the women members had some of the best questions to be honest. made some of the best points. we need the supreme court to have a little courage here, right
or prosecute any doma specific cases. and then over the summer of last year, coming out in a full throated endorsement for marriage equality before his re-election. it would be quite a contradiction if the president had come out for marriage equality but was having his department of justice go after and criminalize doma-style cases and knowing full well it was headed to the supreme court anyway. >> you know, jonathan, it's interesting. again, this idea that the justices as you pointed out...
137
137
Jun 26, 2013
06/13
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 137
favorite 0
quote 0
doma and ding-dong doma is dead. we'll see how this works out. >> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. (vo) an eleven story building just came down on your head. can you make it out the front door? >> you can tell so much about a person from the way they live. just looking around here, i can tell you're a genuinely dirty person. >> hal: welcome back to the show. i'm hal sparks filling in for steph and the mooks while they're away on vacation simply so that news can happen. that's the sound of doug penic and doug is out and gay and now would have the right my de
doma and ding-dong doma is dead. we'll see how this works out. >> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but...
132
132
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 132
favorite 0
quote 1
can one house of congress defend doma without the other? third, even if one house could, did a committee have the power to intervene, and fourth does the administration of the president's agreement to deprive the supreme court of the judds. again, remember, the obama administration informed eric holder not to enforce doma, but it seems like a game of chicken with the president says i want the supreme court to do this, and the supreme court saying why isn't the president enforcing this or trying to do something on his own accord. it's an odd, trying two-step right now. about you we'll know full well by 2:00 when we have the full audio. >> jeffrey, i wanted to give you a chance to speak to thomas' points. >> i think he summarized the dilemma very accurately, and john roberts said, can you name a single case in history where congress has had the power -- or one house of congress has had the power to defend an act ofeniof that the president has not defended? we all knew that conservative justices might be skeptical, but the fact that liberal ju
can one house of congress defend doma without the other? third, even if one house could, did a committee have the power to intervene, and fourth does the administration of the president's agreement to deprive the supreme court of the judds. again, remember, the obama administration informed eric holder not to enforce doma, but it seems like a game of chicken with the president says i want the supreme court to do this, and the supreme court saying why isn't the president enforcing this or trying...
101
101
Dec 1, 2012
12/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 101
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> doma covers the whole country and federal law. how do the two things interact with each other. >> they have almost a dozen cases involving same-sex marriage before them right now. >> also define doma, if you would. >> the defensive marriage act passed in 1996 which says for federal tax and other federal purposes, marriage shall be defined only between a man and a woman. so a couple of different federal court of appeals in the second circuit and the first circuit have struck down that aspect of doma, saying that the federal government has to treat same-sex married couples from those states that recognize same-sex marriage as married for federal purposes. so i think a lot of people properly speculate that the supreme court will have to take at least one of these doma cases, because when lower courts are struck down in aederal statute, that's a big deal, and we have to get a resolution of that. whether the preme court says at the same time it's going to go ahead and take the prop 8 case alongside or whether it will take a doma case a
. >> doma covers the whole country and federal law. how do the two things interact with each other. >> they have almost a dozen cases involving same-sex marriage before them right now. >> also define doma, if you would. >> the defensive marriage act passed in 1996 which says for federal tax and other federal purposes, marriage shall be defined only between a man and a woman. so a couple of different federal court of appeals in the second circuit and the first circuit...
178
178
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 178
favorite 0
quote 0
, section 3 of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision, for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determinations of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this discriminatory purpose was rooted in moral disapproval as justice kagan pointed out. >> what -- what do you think of his -- the argument that i heard was, to put the other side, at least one part of it as i understand it said -- look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there has been this uniform one man one woman rule for several hundred years or whatever, and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the resolution -- the revolution or push it along a little, or we stay out of it. and i think mr. clement was saying, well, we've decided
, section 3 of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision, for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determinations of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this discriminatory purpose was rooted in moral...
165
165
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 165
favorite 0
quote 0
-- a section 3 of doma. no one has identified federal interest that is being served by congress for the first time in our nations history to undermine undermine the determinations of the sovereign states to respect to eligibility for for marriage. i respectfully contend that this is because there is none. as the title of the statute wass clear, the --doma enacted to defend marriage. it was rooted in a moral disapproval. >> the argument i heard from the other side -- at least as i understand it, is look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. uniform one-this man-one-woman rule for several years. there is a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the resolution or push it along and stay out of it. i think mr. clement was saying, we have decided to stay out of it. the way to stay out of it is to go with the traditional thing. that is an argument. your answer is what? i understand. [laughter] >> congress should not stay out of it. section 3 of doma is not staying out of it. it is stopping the r
-- a section 3 of doma. no one has identified federal interest that is being served by congress for the first time in our nations history to undermine undermine the determinations of the sovereign states to respect to eligibility for for marriage. i respectfully contend that this is because there is none. as the title of the statute wass clear, the --doma enacted to defend marriage. it was rooted in a moral disapproval. >> the argument i heard from the other side -- at least as i...